On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 03:55:01PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > In the end, my goal here is to provide a useful abstraction and a > > simple implementation that is likely to be correct. Then, later, if > > profiling shows that this is an actual bottleneck, we can optimize > > it. But I don't want to spend a bunch of time optimizing code that I > > don't even know is important. > > Would using a single atomic int be worse than using an array of > locks? At least it would be simpler and obviously correct?
An atomic_uint would be easy, but the hit and miss and lost counts can easily overflow UINT_MAX after a while. atomic_ullong isn't portable, unfortunately. Maybe I will skip the whole controversy and just add a mutex around these variables. It might be slow, but it might not be the bottleneck initially, and it would be obviously correct. What do you guys think? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
